Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:57AM
from the picking-some-fights dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours. Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike."

A bit of suspense makes it more interesting. Also it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it. That itself then becomes news. We need to be reminded how hard the government will try to cover up their crimes, until we act to clip its talons. Otherwise we end up like China, where every government blunder is covered up.

>>>it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it

I'm planning to create a website documenting U.S. government (and possibly EU government) abuses. Everytime someone says, "But government is good," it's a pain to have to scramble to gather all the info & educate them.

This way I can simply point to www.governmentabuse.com and be done with it.

Why do you think everyone else in ANY industry are pre-announcing what they do?Products, goods, actions, whatever..

You need to create the expectation for your information to last long enough. Otherwise, its going to be on the news for 2 days and gone and forgotten even if it was rather sensationalist.

We're at Slashdot, ever thought about Apple's marketing? It's all about that; Rumors, expectations, then a big announcement.. and actual product availability month later.You did not think it was related to thei

I'm Canadian, but I may be able to answer your question to some extent. We've elected a Conservative government since 2006. They are on the far right of the Canadian political spectrum, even falling to the right of centre on the American spectrum. Since they've come in power, there are several small but significant changes to our country's traditions.

- The Prime Minister now abuses his executive authority to evade Parliamentary accountability and mask his contempt of Parliament.- The Prime Minister now has an entire entourage of armed guards and travels with them in a fleet of at least 5 cars... to a house across the street (our Governor General's house), instead of walking like every single one of the previous PMs.- We now have, for all intents and purposes, free speech zones, although they're not called as such. The RCMP blocks protesters from coming within a certain radius of the Prime Minister because the PM, and I quote from an RCMP letter, "could have been embarrassed."- The Prime Minister has, time and again, tried to intervene with arms-length governmental agencies by appointing to important positions those who share his neo-conservative views and equal contempt of Parliament. For example, the Rights and Democracy organization chair was appointed by the PM, and now that the organization is coming under fire, the chair refuses to appear before a Parliamentary committee.- The PM also intervenes with arms-length agencies by firing or replacing those in positions of power in those agencies for disagreeing with him. Paul Kennedy, former RCMP watchdog, is the latest victim of this campaign, as he was way too critical of the RCMP. For example, Kennedy wanted to hold officers accountable for their actions! Unthinkable.- The PM has, for a couple of years now, if I recall correctly, refused to do unscripted interviews with mainstream national media outlets (particularly with the public broadcaster, CBC) because he accuses mainstream national media outlets of liberal bias (where have you heard that before?). He's also tried, unsuccessfully, to dismantle the CBC, but has instead settled for reducing its budget year-over-year.

To understand how that is relevant to your question, you will need some background information on Canadian politics and our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Mr. Harper LOOOOOVVVESSS you guys. He LOVES America. In a 1997 speech [www.ctv.ca], he blasts Canada for being a "Northern European welfare state" (like Norway or Sweden) and makes the case that America is the shining conservative beacon towards which we as a nation should strive to resemble. This is reflective of his practices while he was in office. He's hired former Republican consultants and PR people and strategists to help with his campaigning and policy decisions. To cut to the chase, Mr. Harper is an American Republican at heart.

In Canada, we've had a long political tradition of responsible politics. There were some scandals here and there, but they were relatively minor. The most controversial use of the executive power of the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) was back in the Trudeau era, when Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act because of terrorism-related acts (bombings, kidnappings) by the FLQ in Quebec, a Quebec nationalist group. Even then, the use may be controversial or questionable, but it was undoubtedly a crisis situation. Otherwise, the executive power of the PMO has almost always been exercised responsibly. That is, until Mr. Harper came along. He abused Parliamentary process by defying the will of Parliament. In Canadian politics, the appointment of a PM is not technically decided by the party with the most seats. It is decided by whichever Member of Parliament has the most support in terms of the number of other Members of Parliament. So a coalition with the opposition parties would mean a new Prime Minister. Mr. Harper didn't like this very much, so he decided

Thankfully, health care is one of four things that Canadians love so much that they're willing to stand up and fight for it (the other three things being: beer, hockey, and that god awful Tim Horton's coffee).

You need the health care and coffee to counteract the hockey and beer.

I take personally your accusations about health care. As a young person I had to drop my health coverage because I can not afford it. I rarely go to the doctor; I have been once in the last 3 years so I could get an allergy medication that is now over the counter. Yet despite having good health My policy price kept going up and up and almost every month when I paid it I would get a notice that premiums were increasing and that they were no longer covering x, y, or z. The coverage continued to decline and

Especially when the people in question are busy not buying health care on their own (as most uninsured young adults choose not to buy it).

That's a problem, though -- having the young adults out of the risk pool makes health insurance more expensive for everyone else! Instead of having them mostly having no problems at all (and thus missing their payments into the pool lacking corresponding payouts) and then having massive externalized expenses every time one of them ends up in the hospital for something tha

Preventative care is a myth. Patients don't want it and will not use it. Those that do use it are going to experience a cost far greater than the benefit due to all the overhead and false-positives. They will soon stop using it, unless there's some kind of anticipated need for it.

Mmm. I find that I make use of preventative care all the time now that it's conveniently accessible (my current very-large employer has an in-house clinic next door to the company cafeteria), but let me recount some of my personal

Usually? As in half the time or more often? You are grossly misinformed.
For states like CA and MA, where most of the pot you can buy is local-ish,
you are just dead wrong. The converse statement (cocaine dealers are usually
pot dealers) would be a lot more plausible.

What's the most ironic about drug laws is that the laws cause the very social problems they purport to solve.

The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

Ever hear of Underwriters Laboratories? You don't need government regulation for product safety.

The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

As a society we have every interest in regulating actions that also "indirectly" affect another person's rights. Many criminal statutes deal with indirect affect, including all of the so called "victimless crimes".

And whether I get insurance does affect you. Since I virtually never visit the doctor, what you pay for insurance would actually decrease if I bought insurance.

As someone who purchases insurance it is in your best interest that a large body of healthy people also buy insurance.

If the only people who buy insurance are those who routinely get sick your insurance rates will go up.

Also as a society we all benefit when you are covered by insurance so you can get to see the doctor when you feel sick and potentially stop an outbreak of an contagion. Whether that be a contagion of AIDS, hepatitis or tuberculosis or something else.

If what the American people truly want is a federal government with no effective limits on its power, then accepting such a broad interpretation of what is structurally a statement of purpose is a good thing. You can use that line to do basically anything you want, so long as you say it is for the good of the people.

I'm fairly certain that wasn't the intention of the framers, because they bothered to write the rest of the Constitution after it, but I'm one of th

My employer provides health insurance and I have to pay a significant premium for it. I've just learned that my premiums are going to jump over 200% percent next year to pay for your health insurance due to the new legislation that just passed. I can barely afford it now. Forget about next year. Hope you enjoy your "free" insurance.

I'm not even aware of the Republican's claiming the bill just passed will increase premiums for existing policy holders, certainly not by the scale you mention. Assuming you're n

Insurance also allows hospitals to charge patients 200$ for a tooth brush. You may create a bigger pool of usable money by putting more healthy people in it, but nothing in that plan addresses the obscene amount of waste caused (in part) by insurance in the first place.

If a medical bill is under 50 000$, insurance companies typically don't even look at the invoice. And now they'll have even less of an incentive to pay attention to the costs since insurance becomes mandatory. I'm quite happy for those who

I don't understand your disbelief. Do you have a hard time believing that people who earn their living on minimum wage jobs exist? Or are you saying that people who 'decide' to work minimum wage jobs do so because they're lazy and therefore don't deserve health insurance?

Which means they're idiots. Seriously. Wikileaks is likely to be under surveillance all the time. To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen? It'd be like Daniel Ellsberg announcing at a press conference that he's got secret documents called the Pentagon papers, and that he'll release them in a week later.

To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen?

Actually, it shows profound respect for the men and women doing the fighting, that they're willing to hold a very important story for awhile to minimize any theoretical impact to the boots on the ground. And letting everyone, including the brass, know whats coming, lets them start work early on the coverup/spin or maybe even genuinely change things to improve the situation.

Here's a crash course in strategy vs tactics. Wikileaks isn't pulling some teenage prank solely for the purpose of seeing people in power with their pants down. In order to actually make a long-term difference to society, you need to play a long game by allowing your adversaries to respond in a way that allows you to be agile. By announcing ahead of time, Wikileaks can observe patterns of reaction which allows them to optimise the way in which they reveal the payload for ma

That struck me as really odd - publicly saying "we're going to release something that the Pentagon really doesn't want you to know in two weeks time" seems to be positively inviting attempts at suppression by the authorities.

If they really have leaked information that they think people should know about, then surely they should just "publish and be damned" - not engage in what appears to be news management in an attempt to create a sensationalist media buzz about it?

Maybe they're hoping to demonstrate what the authorities are willing to go to. OTOH maybe they're trying to forestall some possible harassment by making an early (even a surprise announcement) that something's happening so that eyes will be on the authorities in advance.

There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

OTOH, it's very easy for governments to simply "classify away" embarrassing secrets that are in fact no danger to national security. That's exactly the sort of thing that Wikileaks is built for. It's a national security risk only in that it risks the jobs of the people who fucked up, who may be in charge of security.

There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).

Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.

Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.

They do if they are publishing classified information, private information about individuals, etc. I'm not sure any jurisdiction in the world actually has absolute freedom of speech coded in law — even in the US, there have been Supreme Court cases balancing the First Amendment against other concerns with legal weight — and there are explicit exemptions in the basic constitutional or human rights legislation almost everywhere covering things like genuine national security interests.

3. When?

A common example is publishing the membership list of the BNP. It is particularly ironic since by outing those people, Wikileaks actually removed some protection and consequently damaged the freedom of expression of a minority political group that has been subject to dubious restrictions by mainstream politicians.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like the BNP's politics at all. I just don't like censoring them rather than beating them with rational argument any better.)

In the United States at least, "classified" binds the people responsible for maintaining its secrecy, basically people in the government. But once it's out, Wikileaks is within their legal rights to share that information. Unless of course it's protected by the DCMA.

There are basically two types of interesting classified information that Wikileaks can leak:
1. Classified information that should really remain classified for everyone's safety
2. Classified information information that's actually just cover-up for government's abuses

If they leak the first type, I expect the government to act quickly and change those atomic launch codes - if an unprofessional spy organisation like Wikileaks can find them, you can be quite sure North Korea has them for a while. I also expect the persons responsible for keeping such info secret be fired/jailed/shot, and I expect democracy to act in that direction.If they leak the second type, I also expect democracy to act and the abuses curbed.In both cases, Wikileaks has a valid reason to exist, and the mere fact they are breaking the law to do so it's not unethical - they exist precisely to point out flaws in the law or they way it's enforced.The primary sources for the leaks will also exercise some form of personal judgement and are much likely to release type 2 info - the percentage of people with anti-social disorders is low.

I did not realize that a list of what sort of equipment was purchased constitutes a threat to national security. They did not post troop movements, they just posted a list of what our tax dollars are being spent on -- whose life does this endanger?

"The security procedures at GITMO?"

What about them? If these procedures are so weak that they must be kept secret to remain effective, there is a problem with the procedures.

I think the counter point is that we don't know we have a fundamental problem without people leaking things.

Further, giving away genuine, non "CYA" national secrets that puts civilians/military personnel at risk would be a horrible blow to wikileaks. My point is that there is incentive here for wikileaks to expose only BS-type classified stuff.

Remember, "Deep Throat" gave up classified docs to the press, he broke laws in order to protect lawfulness.

There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).

Did you just say you are opposed to Wikileaks because there is a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government?Dude thats the whole reason Wikileaks exists.

Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.

That's a catch 22 situation. If we can't see what information is being suppressed we'll never know whether or not the justification for suppressing it is good or bad, and consequently whether the law is good or bad.

Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.

The governments of the world have exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of national security/just shut up and trust us argument.

As always, in a "free" country, the question is who watches the watchers?Embarrassing vs Dangerous or both?Is the "reporter" out for glory or sees real criminal behavior or a political agenda?Who gets to decide? If they are arrested, a jury/judge gets to watch the watchers.The correct answer: all of the above.

Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?

Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.

Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

If you ask the US government if it would like to know the assumed names and covers of agents in the US, who work for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they would really like to know. But on the other hand, if you ask the US government if they would like the assumed names and covers of their agents in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they'd say no.

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

I disagree. That's like saying:

"Which is worse? Someone NOT guilty of a crime being convicted, or someone guilty of a crime NOT being convicted? I, and most people, would say the latter."

I would assume (not trying to build a strawman) that this would be your general line of thinking. I'd rather have the occasional "oops, we should have classified that" than "we're being safe and classifying everything (including stuff that's classified and shouldn't be).

An occasional blunder to not classify something that should have been secret is less dangerous to a free society than having everything locked up (probably embarrassing things too). I have a friend who works for the DoD in an intelligence role. He once said, and I quote, "No one ever got fired for over-classifying information". That is a mindset we need to change.

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

That's frighteningly naive. If you create a system in which people can use the pretense of national security to commit heinous crimes, then they will as a matter of statistical certainty use it to commit heinous crimes. If it works, they will be emboldened to commit more numerous and more heinous crimes. If there is no internal regulatory mechanism to stop the cycle -- and generally, there is not, for "national security" reasons -- then you either helplessly watch as your country is imperiled by increasingl

But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified?

Which entity should decide this? Why would it be more qualified to do so than Wikileaks or anyone else?

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

Well, tolerating the former leads directly to a system where people with the power to classify things are not accountable to anyone and where nobody knows what they do. Which, in turn, always leads to all sorts of utterly horrible things. The latter seems to happen quite often recently and what horrible things that have happened because of it? I don't know about most people but I quite definitely think the

Neither do the people doing the classifying. Since nobody seems to be making good decisions about what to keep secret, we're in sort of a bind. Wikileaks' attitude -- that anything that ruffles the conscience enough for someone with a clearance to leak it ought to be public -- is as good of a leading-order approximation as any.

And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

That's a silly argument when governments try to use it to justify privacy invasions, and it's an equally silly argument to make against a government, some of whose members/staff will necessarily have access to information that should not be immediately available to the general public.

Government has a lot of power over you. Whereas you as an individual have very little power over the government. To balance things out, large/powerful entities should be transparent. Smaller entities and individuals get to have secrets (privacy).

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

Actually, many government officials think they are above the law and can apply state secrets laws indiscriminately and without regard for constitutionality. It has been a huge problem throughout the history of the US, because it is very difficult for the fourth estate and the judicial branch of our government to provide the proper checks to balance misuse of that power because of the secrecy involved. What Wikileaks has been doing in many (but not all) cases is protected whistleblowing, protected freedom of the press, and protected free speech that the courts most likely will rule as constitutionally protected if they ever actually make it to court.

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.

I would argue that within the terms you have listed they are not "above the law" but ARE acting within the law. Whats more, they are in those cases, acting in a way specifically protected and sanctioned by that same law.

They are not in USA and do not have to follow our wishes. If the foreign combatants who have broken the video signal encryption for our drones have shared video with them then they should share it if they wish. They have not promised anyone that they will not show something that normal US citizens have no access to online.

whether our defense folks like this or not is not their concern, as leakers....

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are freedom of information laws for a reason.If the defence departement is going to hide sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws -- and it might well be -- then of course Wikileaks are going to take steps,the same way they would with anyone else.Why anyone using/working on National Security thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

To what extent, for the sake of national security, should individual rights and freedoms be restricted and can the restriction of civil r

There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

How can you not understand Freedom of the Press?The constitution is above any other law.

There are national security laws, and there are also exceptions to them. NYT v US [wikipedia.org] found that the release of the Pentagon Papers was protected under the First Amendment freedom of the press since they didn't actually jeopardize national security even though they were classified as such. With that precedent the Supreme Court gave us citizens (provided we're unbound by secrecy agreements) the ability to make an independent evaluation of whether it's proper to keep something secret, though we have to be willi

National security laws exist for a reason, but they are often enforced for entirely different reasons.

Based on the description, there is absolutely nothing here that qualifies for protection. If the military made a mistake and killed innocent people, this news will come out instead. If it was intentional, the only proper course is to expose it.

The only reason "national security" would qualify as an excuse is the fear of backlash or "blowback", either from the citizens or from a foreign country, depending on who was murdered. I don't think whatever this is can top the extraordinary rendition news, or Abu Ghraib, or waterboarding, or detainee "suicides", or anything else that has come out so far. It will add a small amount of fuel to an already huge flaming hatred, at most.

If they do reveal specifics like troop movements or secret agent names, they will be attacked in any way possible, including labeling them enemy combatants and dropping a bomb on them. So I doubt they are going to that level. I don't know what documents WikiLeaks has chosen NOT to show, but the ones they have shown were necessary for the public (or parts of the public) to know and do not put national security at risk.

I see no reason to expect that they are going to announce something that will get them high on America's target list in advance of releasing it. I also see no reason for anyone to be surprised that the CIA wants to know what this is before anyone else sees it. That's their job, and unless they can infiltrate WL or hack some servers real quick like, the only way is the classical way - follow people, take pictures, and ask questions. Citizens may be held without charges for a limited time, and I don't see this being violated anywhere.

In other words, it's all going as one would expect. I want to know what it is now, where before I didn't know that I wanted to know what something was. So thanks, editor, for going through 22 hours of persecution as a publicity stunt, if it helps the cause.

Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

I'm sure this ambiguity was completely accidental. Surely the Wikileaks folks would ever sensationalize anything, or present it out of context.

Appears there's some interpretation/conflation by the person who submitted the Slashdot summary. What the relevant tweets says is:

"WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining. "Then, later:"One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer's seized.That's http://www.skup.no"and"We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike."followed by"We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

(see, you could have gotten all this by following the link in the summary). I've got to say, the hubris implied by that last one seriously reduced by sympathy for these guys.

It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen? Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security. It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank. Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination. I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care. If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.

To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic. I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!". It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something. Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video. What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.

Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.

Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.

Which is why they wait a couple weeks before publicizing. They have either very specific or general knowledge that our guys on the ground will have rotated out of that area by the time the publicize the video. Its entirely possible the guy that leaked the video wanted to watch CNN the day its released on his day off so provided them with a demand, which they are honoring.

If, in an alternate history, you shot an AA gun precisely straight upward from Ploesti Romania in early August of 1943, you could have t

I assume you're aware that even the Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits to those freedoms, especially where sensitive information is concerned, yes? If so, please elaborate on your post explaining why they don't apply here, as the original poster was suggesting that they do. If not, please don't post such nonsense until you do understand that there are limits on freedoms.

Freedom of Speech is applicable to talking about the video, should you happen to see it, but not to it's release.

As for Freedom of the Press, first of all, there are almost certainly National Security implications of the release of a recent military operation. That means that there is likely a judicial precedent for exception to Freedom of the Press on that account.

However, even if there was not an exception for National Security, Wikileaks would only be protected as an entity if they merely published the

If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so? Just put the information out right away; then it's too late to be effectively suppressed.

If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?

Well, a few reasons come to mind:

The information may be dangerously time-sensitive to those who provided it. For example, if it is an image of a building, that means that troops may be in the area. If you give it a few weeks, the troops will be gone and it may be safe to show the footage.

While I love my blogs and such, the Mainstream Media is really the way to get information out. But they need some time to get everything together. Giving them some notice means a better chance that reporters will be al

If you are going to feel embarrassed when someone exposes things that you have done, the solution is quite simple: don't do bad things.

It is not just the USA - look at how Israel has been caught forging British passports so that it could a Hamas leader [bbc.co.uk]. Governments do dirty deeds and then pretend that they did not. The world would be a better place if governments where run by honest, decent people - from top to bottom.

Second both of those sentiments. Actually, the Gestapo treatment would be a bullet in the head and a dirt nap. Since Wikileaks used a greengrocer's apostrophe in "computer's", I hope they get billed for the bullet. Even Hitler was scrupulous about his grammar.